Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 23:47:57 deadalnix wrote:
> Le 09/05/2012 23:31, Joseph Rushton Wakeling a écrit :
> > On a more practical level, the inability of 3rd parties to distribute
> > DMD could have an effect in limiting points of access to the software,
> > with corresponding effects on the possible channels of contribution. The
> > ability to scale up the number of distribution and contribution channels
> > is going to be increasingly important as D develops.
> 
> And even more practical : I can't bundle dmd with an IDE for D to
> provide an easy setup for a user. I can't create a repository where dmd
> sit in to make it easy t install on linux. This make it harder for
> beginner to get started with D.
> 
> I can't even fork dmd. And this is probably the most important one.
> 
> FOSS typically work in a dictatorship manner. This is ok, because the
> dictator HAVE TO do the right thing, or the project will fork and a new
> dictator will take the lead.
> 
> Having a non open source compiler as reference implementation is a major
> issue. Unless you are microsoft, google or some other huge company, you
> can't afford that.
> 
> Walter is arming his baby by trying to protect it.

Umm. No. While Walter is the original creator of the backend, it was owned by 
the company that released it (Zortech) not him. Semantec bought Zortech, so 
they own the compiler. Digital Mars uses it with their permission (via 
licensing or leasing or whatever they did). So, Walter is bound by the license 
that Semantec uses for the backend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zortech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Mars

Walter can give redrisribution permissions if you ask (which he typically does 
quite freely), but I don't believe that he can give blanket permissions, and 
he definitely can't change the license. He's tried. As I understand it, if 
Walter could make the backend GPL, he would, but he can't.

- Jonathan M Davis